10 ms·

Climate protection: CO2 turned into methanol

95 points by wolfi1 4y ago

earthscienceman 4y ago
Soooo. I suppose this has the potential to be very interesting and at the least is very relevant to my personal research. I'm actually working (with a small team) to develop methanol powered autonomous climate research stations. It would be very neat if we could power them via CO2, or poetic. However, wtf is this press release? Is this research? This is announcing a patent? This doesn't seem like science to me? Where's the publications, where is the methodology description? What about the constraints? Energy density of methanol is high, but what's the energy input necessary for the conversion process? Is this only effectively helpful if renewable powered? This press release is useless to anyone who actually cares about the work. It's mediocre marketing at best. God I hate academic press offices.
- siver_john 4y ago
  Looking at Google Scholar it appears the related paper is here: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6463/ac006f/meta https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6463/ac006f/... There also appears to be a patent but I don't trust my googlefu enough to try and search for that.
  - earthscienceman 4y ago
    Thank you for this very much, I didn't manage to find it. I stand by the fact that an academic press office isn't linking to the original paper is absurd. After a brief skim of the paper... the press release is (as typical) pretty out of touch with the research. Chemistry is nothing short of impressive! And I hope methodologies like these push towards viable carbon capture, mostly so we don't get idiots continuing to experiment with riskier techniques like iron fertilization etc. However, the paper leaves me with so many questions. Methane is shown to be an output of the chemical reaction leading to methanol, they claim the methane output is reduced by their modifications to the method but they make no attempt to quantify the amount of methane released in the reaction or how that compares to the CO2 capture. Also also. I'm not a chemist, but it's pretty weird to be measuring energy in eV is it not? If this were truly climate-centric, they could very easily put the Wattage required per kg of carbon capture. Which, although probably extremely high given they haven't had time to optimize it, would give a very clear idea of the efficiency of the capture. It looks like some of this might be quantified in the patent but I can only read French, not German :(
    - R0b0t1 4y ago
      It's measured in eV as it's the most precise* measurement you can make. Ultimately it does turn into enthalpy. Process takes place at 21 bar and 300-500C. I do not see this being efficient unless powered by nukes. This is fine though, and more accessible than the gasoline production methods that use similar high pressure high temperature reactors.
      - earthscienceman 4y ago
        It is the most precise measurement of the energy input required chemically. It says nothing of the efficiency of the process. The energy required to get to 21 bar and 300-500C and maintain it while that energy input is being provided for that specific chemical reaction. I'll reiterate, I have no issue that it's inefficient, that's to be expected. It's not hard at all to give a net energy input for the entire process. In fact that would be the easiest part of the paper. If you're giving your research to your press office to make a statement about "climate protection" I damn well expect that number to be provided. Powered by nuclear as you propose is wonderful, btw. I personally would take nuclear waste over atmospheric CO2 every day of the week.
        jjoonathan 4y ago
        Let's make a giant offshore nuclear-powered CO2->petrol production facility and become techno oil barons. Maybe bond villains too. You have to do something with the money, right? I want to see this movie.
      - jabl 4y ago
        > It's measured in eV as it's the most precise* measurement you can make. Er, no. Just no. eV is just a unit, that doesn't make it more or less precise. eV had its origins in early accelerator physics work where it was a convenient unit to use, and it's use spread from there to other subfields of physics, including ones where the connection to the original processes measured in the early accelerator work is tenuous at best.
        4y ago
  - samstave 4y ago
    https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2022073055A1/en?q=co2+methanol&q=Gernot+Pacholik https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2022073055A1/en?q=co2+me... I think....
  - wgj 4y ago
    https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2022073055A1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2022073055A1/en
amelius 4y ago
As a non-chemist, I wonder: how did they find it? Educated guessing and a lot of experimenting?
- bencollier49 4y ago
  Presumably there are computational models which can predict this sort of thing at the subatomic level?
  - samstave 4y ago
    Can't wait until the AI Compound Pantenter 9000 comes out.
    - amelius 4y ago
      Yes, it sounds like crypto miners are running the wrong algos on their GPUs.
    - mywittyname 4y ago
      This is basically an abstract version of Fold@home, right?
  - convolvatron 4y ago
    are there ones that actually do reactions? I know there are quantum chemistry codes that can derive atomic properties and additionally some crystallization and macro material properties. reactions would be pretty huge.
    - jabl 4y ago
      For instance, there's something called the Nudged Elastic Band (NEB) method that can be bolted on to existing ab initio / quantum chemistry codes, that allows one to calculate energy barriers between different states. Then you can blend those barriers in with some reaction rate theory that can give you some estimate of which potential reaction pathways could be useful and which not.
smm11 4y ago
ExxonMobil will own this IP by day's end, and either squash it, or sell you liquid methane for $369/gallon.
mNovak 4y ago
The underlying paper: https://publik.tuwien.ac.at/files/publik_300063.pdf https://publik.tuwien.ac.at/files/publik_300063.pdf
phkahler 4y ago
There is a lot of information about the process missing from the article. There is no mention of the energy input required, though exhaust CO2 is hot so there is some chance that can contribute to whatever energy is needed. Also, methanol contains hydrogen atoms, so there will need to be hydrogen as an input to this process. Where will the hydrogen come from? Also, how big is the market for methanol? If this is meant as a handy way to reduce some CO2 output while making a side business of methanol (or other) production then it might be good. If it's meant to be industrial scale CO2 elimination then probably not.
- danuker 4y ago
  At least the same amount of energy is required to "un-burn" CO2 as is released burning it up in the first place. Even if you do it cheaply with solar energy, the energy might be better used directly.
  - phkahler 4y ago
    That's why using this to create methanol as a fuel is would be pointless. Hence the question about the size of market for methanol. Similarly there would be no point in using this to produce methanol for use in fuel for cars.
  - wrycoder 4y ago
    The argument would be about whether it's a better plan to 1. Power cars with batteries charged from the grid or use 2. "Green" hydrogen, i.e. from cracking H2O with solar, or use 3. Synfuel derived from CO2 and green hydrogen, i.e. using the synfuel as a "battery", the output being CO2 and H20 again.
  - worik 4y ago
    Storage and transport of otherwise inaccessible energy is the point, surely?
- R0b0t1 4y ago
  The authors likely didn't analyze it. It gives a value in eV, that can be extrapolated outwards though I am not exactly sure how. It would also depend on how you implement the process. However, the paper does mention the reactor is at 21 bar and 300-500C, to give you ballpark requirements for any implementation. This likely isn't a viable CO2 reduction method. It would be if there was a massive overbuildout of green energy collection. A more likely use is a green way to make a portable power source. It's possible to produce gasoline from CO2+extra+H and extreme heat and pressure. This seems more achievable. Such designs were, I think, using nuclear heat almost directly.
RajT88 4y ago
If they can figure out how to make ethanol out of CO2, someone is going to become a billionaire selling "Save the planet Vodka".
- primis 4y ago
  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451929419300294 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S245192941... It seems we can already do the Methanol to Ethanol step with a catalyst!
- adregan 4y ago
  You're in luck! Air company is doing just that: https://aircompany.com/products/air-vodka https://aircompany.com/products/air-vodka Their focus is on creating high margin low volume products while the process is scaling to stay afloat.
  - RajT88 4y ago
    Backed by Toyota and Jet Blue for (eventually) making fuel: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/16/air-company-makes-vodka-out-of-co2-emissions-backed-by-toyota-jetblue.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/16/air-company-makes-vodka-out-... For starters I guess they're focusing on the "Heavy Fuel". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7j3KX-N9wo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7j3KX-N9wo
cogman10 4y ago
Silly question, where are the hydrogen atoms coming from? H2O?
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  From the paper it looks like the reaction was done with hydrogen gas[1]: > Reaction conditions were 1 mbar reaction mixture (CO2:H2 = 1:3) at 200 ◦C and 300 ◦C. [1] https://publik.tuwien.ac.at/files/publik_300063.pdf https://publik.tuwien.ac.at/files/publik_300063.pdf
  - cogman10 4y ago
    Thanks, didn't realize the actual paper was available. So, for this to work, you'd need a decent temperature and a supply of H2. I'm also guessing the CO2 needs to be somewhat pure, so you'd need Cryogenic distillation to pull out the pure CO2 [1]. Seems like it'd be pretty energy intensive (Not that I'd think it'd be otherwise. Conservation of energy and all) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_separation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_separation
  - time_to_smile 4y ago
    > hydrogen gas Which is unfortunate since the vast majority of our hydrogen is manufactured from fossil fuels. It's really almost laughable how many "solutions" to emissions are ultimately accounting tricks. People keep arguing there are solutions but atmospheric CO2 continues to rise and an increasing rate. Planet doesn't care how clever your argument is for using "less" co2.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Just because most current production of hydrogen is from fossil fuel does not mean that will remain true in the future. As solar electricity continues getting cheaper and catalysts improve improve, H2 production will shift to electrolysis from water.
      - time_to_smile 4y ago
xaedes 4y ago
The Fischer–Tropsch processes - they are talking about that , don't they, at least very similar - for converting CO or CO2 and methan into liquid fuel seem so attractive... They are feeding on both of the worst green house gases to make fuel. Basically that makes it the reverse process to our climate-sins of burning fossil fuels like there is no tomorrow. If we could use the Fischer-Tropsch processes to process atmospheric CO2 and methan on a really large scale we could recycle burnt fuel and create a global equilibrium. Fuel would then be used as energy storage instead of energy source. Fuel is an attractive energy storage, because it is simple, has high energy density and we have LOTS of experience and legacy hardware powered by fuel. From the view point of a simearth/civilization/4x/colonization/strategy game player that is a technology I would like to unlock. Obviously simplistic view, because it is not that easy... Like the article states: "However, they have the major disadvantage that they are not robust. If there are certain other substances in the exhaust gas stream besides carbon dioxide, for example sulfur, the catalyst quickly loses its activity. It is said that the catalyst is poisoned." Good to see them make progress in that area!
- jagraff 4y ago
  Agreed - fuel as energy storage is the future. Build out a lot of excess solar and wind capacity, and then use all the excess capacity to continually generate fuels by extracting greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere. So we still burn fuel and use the atmosphere to buffer our emissions, but it all gets extracted out so we no longer have the same negative externalities (as long as the full cost of extraction is paid by the consumer of the fuel, which presumably could be done with a tax if implemented correctly).
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Methanol is a poor choice for storing energy. It needs carbon from somewhere. Ammonia and hydrogen will be practical: ammonia stored at low pressure, and hydrogen underground.
- Teknoman117 4y ago
  That's the argument of biofuels as well, correct? If you're growing plants and then burning them, and regrowing them again, the net carbon in the atmosphere didn't change. This is ignoring particulate pollution though. Fossil fuels are an issue because we're pulling up carbon that's been sequestered for eons and putting it back in the air.
hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
The global economy does not really have a carbon problem. It has an energy problem. That is, if you take the energy required to turn CO2 into methanol, why not just use that energy directly in the things that need it? I'm not saying this is entirely useless, because obviously with renewables the biggest problem is energy storage, but too often I feel announcements like this lead with the "we can turn atmospheric CO2 in gasoline" while glossing over the crux of the problem, which is where does that energy come from in the first place.
- inglor_cz 4y ago
  Methanol may be more transportable than electricity. Imagine a farm of floating wind farms far in the ocean, located in places where the wind conditions are reliable. If they produce methanol, you do not have to run a long power cable to the nearest shore, you just need to visit them every now and then with a cistern ship.
- tunesmith 4y ago
  Isn't part of the answer that we actually need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? It's not sufficient to just get to net-zero.
- outworlder 4y ago
  > why not just use that energy directly in the things that need it That's a very important point. However, sometimes you can't use the energy - like we can't eat CO2 + sunlight, but plants can turn that into something usable. Methanol is useful for chemical processes. The US Navy was looking into fuel production in aircraft carriers, which involved CO2 sequestration. That's useful since they have the spare power. And so on. It may also indirectly avoid more emissions - the CO2 being used has to be transported from somewhere, be it coal, oil, or other sources.
- elil17 4y ago
  Two thoughts on this: Good progress is being made on the clean electricity generation front. But distribution and storage are huge challenges. CO2 utilization processes solve distribution and storage challenges. Many CO2 capture processes need heat, not necessarily electricity. That really changed the landscape of effective energy sources (e.g. nuclear looks ~3x cheaper per thermal kWh vs. per electric kWh according to a researcher I spoke to). Solar thermal also starts to look practical (and for many processes the energy intensive sorbent regeneration step, unlike the air contractors, is not capex constrained so you don’t really care that it only runs when the sun is shining.
Animats 4y ago
Looks like more fossil-fuel promotion FUD. CO2 to methanol is energetically uphill. This is going to take energy to do. A lot of energy. It's likely to be insanely wasteful of energy, like using solar power to make electricity to crack water into hydrogen so the hydrogen can be burned to make electricity. That's about 40% efficient, nobody does it, but it's used as a talking point. Producing energy without generating CO2 is now both easier and cheaper than trying to do something with the CO2 from burning fuels.
- oifjsidjf 4y ago
  "Imagine the amount of brainwashing it took from the oil industry to convince people that cows are the problem instead of the oil industry".
  - samstave 4y ago
    [0] - the old interview that supposedly states the origin of "fossil Fuels" by Oil Exec... [1] - One of the many articles refuting [0] --- [0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2RC9DgbJtM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2RC9DgbJtM [1] - https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-fossil-fuel-rockefeller/fact-check-the-term-fossil-fuel-was-not-coined-by-john-d-rockefeller-to-trick-people-into-thinking-oil-is-a-scarce-commodity-idUSL1N2QQ1UK https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-fossil-fuel-rockef...
- missedthecue 4y ago
  But this pull CO2 out of the air and puts it to good use, whereas building solar panels only prevents future CO2 emissions. They are different goals.
  - lozenge 4y ago
    This doesn't pull CO2 out of the air. CO2 in the air is at 420ppm meaning you would need to process a huge amount of air to get a significant amount of methanol. This pulls CO2 out of "where carbon dioxide occurs in maximum concentration - for example directly in the exhaust gas stream of large industrial plants". One example would be fossil fuel power plants... It's an interesting technology but is bound to be co-opted by those who will pretend it is a reason to allow fossil fuel extraction to continue without limit. Eg [1] Also, many uses for methanol, such as as a fuel additive, release the carbon back into the atmosphere. Once the fossil fuel is extracted and burned, the carbon has moved from the slow cycle to the fast cycle - and it'll stay there.[2] [1] https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/ccs-will-not-solve-this-problem-energy-expert-responds-to-expected-morrison-government-announcement/ https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/ccs-will-not-sol... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle#:~:text=Fast%20and%20slow%20cycles,-The%20slow%20carbon&text=The%20fast%20or%20biological%20cycle,%2C%20soil%2C%20ocean%20and%20atmosphere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle#:~:text=Fast%20an....
jmyeet 4y ago
I'm a big believer that the ultimate solution to the climate crisis will involve in big part carbon sequestration in many forms. This is why the cost of energy is so important. Carbon sequestration is a relatively simple process but it makes no sense to burn hydrocarbons to do it. But if energy is sufficiently cheap then you can produce hydrocarbon fuels from the atmosphere, which at least is carbon neutral. There are a lot of use cases for this beyond economics too. For example, solar gets used a lot in a lot of cold remote regions. It's nowhere near as efficient as, say, ecuatorial solar power but the alternatives are much more expensive. Getting fuel to remote locations can be really expensive. Economics matter but so do circumstances. Solar is particularly good because it has no moving parts and is particularly efficient because it's about the only mass form of energy production that directly produces power (rather than, say, heating water to turn a generator, which adds a lot of expense, maintenance and failure modes). This article is kinda vague about what's going on but some form of carbon sequestration for practical purposes is going to be important IMHO.
bricss 4y ago
Carbon to tough to be dealt with and it will require at least a fusion reactor to handle it. Or good luck digging for manganese \(･◡･)/
fallingfrog 4y ago
Yeah that’s still going to require some external energy input, probably in the form of heat. It only matters in terms of atmospheric co2 if that heat comes from non fossil sources, or else it’s a net negative for the environment.

95 points by wolfi1 4y ago

Soooo. I suppose this has the potential to be very interesting and at the least is very relevant to my personal research. I'm actually working (with a small team) to develop methanol powered autonomous climate research stations. It would be very neat if we could power them via CO2, or poetic. However, wtf is this press release? Is this research? This is announcing a patent? This doesn't seem like science to me? Where's the publications, where is the methodology description? What about the constraints? Energy density of methanol is high, but what's the energy input necessary for the conversion process? Is this only effectively helpful if renewable powered? This press release is useless to anyone who actually cares about the work. It's mediocre marketing at best. God I hate academic press offices.

siver_john 4y ago
Looking at Google Scholar it appears the related paper is here: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6463/ac006f/meta https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6463/ac006f/... There also appears to be a patent but I don't trust my googlefu enough to try and search for that.
- earthscienceman 4y ago
  Thank you for this very much, I didn't manage to find it. I stand by the fact that an academic press office isn't linking to the original paper is absurd. After a brief skim of the paper... the press release is (as typical) pretty out of touch with the research. Chemistry is nothing short of impressive! And I hope methodologies like these push towards viable carbon capture, mostly so we don't get idiots continuing to experiment with riskier techniques like iron fertilization etc. However, the paper leaves me with so many questions. Methane is shown to be an output of the chemical reaction leading to methanol, they claim the methane output is reduced by their modifications to the method but they make no attempt to quantify the amount of methane released in the reaction or how that compares to the CO2 capture. Also also. I'm not a chemist, but it's pretty weird to be measuring energy in eV is it not? If this were truly climate-centric, they could very easily put the Wattage required per kg of carbon capture. Which, although probably extremely high given they haven't had time to optimize it, would give a very clear idea of the efficiency of the capture. It looks like some of this might be quantified in the patent but I can only read French, not German :(
  - R0b0t1 4y ago
    It's measured in eV as it's the most precise* measurement you can make. Ultimately it does turn into enthalpy. Process takes place at 21 bar and 300-500C. I do not see this being efficient unless powered by nukes. This is fine though, and more accessible than the gasoline production methods that use similar high pressure high temperature reactors.
    - earthscienceman 4y ago
      It is the most precise measurement of the energy input required chemically. It says nothing of the efficiency of the process. The energy required to get to 21 bar and 300-500C and maintain it while that energy input is being provided for that specific chemical reaction. I'll reiterate, I have no issue that it's inefficient, that's to be expected. It's not hard at all to give a net energy input for the entire process. In fact that would be the easiest part of the paper. If you're giving your research to your press office to make a statement about "climate protection" I damn well expect that number to be provided. Powered by nuclear as you propose is wonderful, btw. I personally would take nuclear waste over atmospheric CO2 every day of the week.
      - jjoonathan 4y ago
        Let's make a giant offshore nuclear-powered CO2->petrol production facility and become techno oil barons. Maybe bond villains too. You have to do something with the money, right? I want to see this movie.
    - jabl 4y ago
      > It's measured in eV as it's the most precise* measurement you can make. Er, no. Just no. eV is just a unit, that doesn't make it more or less precise. eV had its origins in early accelerator physics work where it was a convenient unit to use, and it's use spread from there to other subfields of physics, including ones where the connection to the original processes measured in the early accelerator work is tenuous at best.
      - 4y ago
- samstave 4y ago
  https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2022073055A1/en?q=co2+methanol&q=Gernot+Pacholik https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2022073055A1/en?q=co2+me... I think....
- wgj 4y ago
  https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2022073055A1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2022073055A1/en

amelius 4y ago

As a non-chemist, I wonder: how did they find it? Educated guessing and a lot of experimenting?

bencollier49 4y ago
Presumably there are computational models which can predict this sort of thing at the subatomic level?
- samstave 4y ago
  Can't wait until the AI Compound Pantenter 9000 comes out.
  - amelius 4y ago
    Yes, it sounds like crypto miners are running the wrong algos on their GPUs.
  - mywittyname 4y ago
    This is basically an abstract version of Fold@home, right?
- convolvatron 4y ago
  are there ones that actually do reactions? I know there are quantum chemistry codes that can derive atomic properties and additionally some crystallization and macro material properties. reactions would be pretty huge.
  - jabl 4y ago
    For instance, there's something called the Nudged Elastic Band (NEB) method that can be bolted on to existing ab initio / quantum chemistry codes, that allows one to calculate energy barriers between different states. Then you can blend those barriers in with some reaction rate theory that can give you some estimate of which potential reaction pathways could be useful and which not.

smm11 4y ago

ExxonMobil will own this IP by day's end, and either squash it, or sell you liquid methane for $369/gallon.

mNovak 4y ago

The underlying paper: https://publik.tuwien.ac.at/files/publik_300063.pdf https://publik.tuwien.ac.at/files/publik_300063.pdf

phkahler 4y ago

There is a lot of information about the process missing from the article. There is no mention of the energy input required, though exhaust CO2 is hot so there is some chance that can contribute to whatever energy is needed. Also, methanol contains hydrogen atoms, so there will need to be hydrogen as an input to this process. Where will the hydrogen come from? Also, how big is the market for methanol? If this is meant as a handy way to reduce some CO2 output while making a side business of methanol (or other) production then it might be good. If it's meant to be industrial scale CO2 elimination then probably not.

danuker 4y ago
At least the same amount of energy is required to "un-burn" CO2 as is released burning it up in the first place. Even if you do it cheaply with solar energy, the energy might be better used directly.
- phkahler 4y ago
  That's why using this to create methanol as a fuel is would be pointless. Hence the question about the size of market for methanol. Similarly there would be no point in using this to produce methanol for use in fuel for cars.
- wrycoder 4y ago
  The argument would be about whether it's a better plan to 1. Power cars with batteries charged from the grid or use 2. "Green" hydrogen, i.e. from cracking H2O with solar, or use 3. Synfuel derived from CO2 and green hydrogen, i.e. using the synfuel as a "battery", the output being CO2 and H20 again.
- worik 4y ago
  Storage and transport of otherwise inaccessible energy is the point, surely?
R0b0t1 4y ago
The authors likely didn't analyze it. It gives a value in eV, that can be extrapolated outwards though I am not exactly sure how. It would also depend on how you implement the process. However, the paper does mention the reactor is at 21 bar and 300-500C, to give you ballpark requirements for any implementation. This likely isn't a viable CO2 reduction method. It would be if there was a massive overbuildout of green energy collection. A more likely use is a green way to make a portable power source. It's possible to produce gasoline from CO2+extra+H and extreme heat and pressure. This seems more achievable. Such designs were, I think, using nuclear heat almost directly.

RajT88 4y ago

If they can figure out how to make ethanol out of CO2, someone is going to become a billionaire selling "Save the planet Vodka".

primis 4y ago
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451929419300294 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S245192941... It seems we can already do the Methanol to Ethanol step with a catalyst!
adregan 4y ago
You're in luck! Air company is doing just that: https://aircompany.com/products/air-vodka https://aircompany.com/products/air-vodka Their focus is on creating high margin low volume products while the process is scaling to stay afloat.
- RajT88 4y ago
  Backed by Toyota and Jet Blue for (eventually) making fuel: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/16/air-company-makes-vodka-out-of-co2-emissions-backed-by-toyota-jetblue.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/16/air-company-makes-vodka-out-... For starters I guess they're focusing on the "Heavy Fuel". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7j3KX-N9wo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7j3KX-N9wo

cogman10 4y ago

Silly question, where are the hydrogen atoms coming from? H2O?

AlexandrB 4y ago
From the paper it looks like the reaction was done with hydrogen gas[1]: > Reaction conditions were 1 mbar reaction mixture (CO2:H2 = 1:3) at 200 ◦C and 300 ◦C. [1] https://publik.tuwien.ac.at/files/publik_300063.pdf https://publik.tuwien.ac.at/files/publik_300063.pdf
- cogman10 4y ago
  Thanks, didn't realize the actual paper was available. So, for this to work, you'd need a decent temperature and a supply of H2. I'm also guessing the CO2 needs to be somewhat pure, so you'd need Cryogenic distillation to pull out the pure CO2 [1]. Seems like it'd be pretty energy intensive (Not that I'd think it'd be otherwise. Conservation of energy and all) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_separation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_separation
- time_to_smile 4y ago
  > hydrogen gas Which is unfortunate since the vast majority of our hydrogen is manufactured from fossil fuels. It's really almost laughable how many "solutions" to emissions are ultimately accounting tricks. People keep arguing there are solutions but atmospheric CO2 continues to rise and an increasing rate. Planet doesn't care how clever your argument is for using "less" co2.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Just because most current production of hydrogen is from fossil fuel does not mean that will remain true in the future. As solar electricity continues getting cheaper and catalysts improve improve, H2 production will shift to electrolysis from water.
    - time_to_smile 4y ago

xaedes 4y ago

The Fischer–Tropsch processes - they are talking about that , don't they, at least very similar - for converting CO or CO2 and methan into liquid fuel seem so attractive... They are feeding on both of the worst green house gases to make fuel. Basically that makes it the reverse process to our climate-sins of burning fossil fuels like there is no tomorrow. If we could use the Fischer-Tropsch processes to process atmospheric CO2 and methan on a really large scale we could recycle burnt fuel and create a global equilibrium. Fuel would then be used as energy storage instead of energy source. Fuel is an attractive energy storage, because it is simple, has high energy density and we have LOTS of experience and legacy hardware powered by fuel. From the view point of a simearth/civilization/4x/colonization/strategy game player that is a technology I would like to unlock. Obviously simplistic view, because it is not that easy... Like the article states: "However, they have the major disadvantage that they are not robust. If there are certain other substances in the exhaust gas stream besides carbon dioxide, for example sulfur, the catalyst quickly loses its activity. It is said that the catalyst is poisoned." Good to see them make progress in that area!

jagraff 4y ago
Agreed - fuel as energy storage is the future. Build out a lot of excess solar and wind capacity, and then use all the excess capacity to continually generate fuels by extracting greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere. So we still burn fuel and use the atmosphere to buffer our emissions, but it all gets extracted out so we no longer have the same negative externalities (as long as the full cost of extraction is paid by the consumer of the fuel, which presumably could be done with a tax if implemented correctly).
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Methanol is a poor choice for storing energy. It needs carbon from somewhere. Ammonia and hydrogen will be practical: ammonia stored at low pressure, and hydrogen underground.
Teknoman117 4y ago
That's the argument of biofuels as well, correct? If you're growing plants and then burning them, and regrowing them again, the net carbon in the atmosphere didn't change. This is ignoring particulate pollution though. Fossil fuels are an issue because we're pulling up carbon that's been sequestered for eons and putting it back in the air.

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

The global economy does not really have a carbon problem. It has an energy problem. That is, if you take the energy required to turn CO2 into methanol, why not just use that energy directly in the things that need it? I'm not saying this is entirely useless, because obviously with renewables the biggest problem is energy storage, but too often I feel announcements like this lead with the "we can turn atmospheric CO2 in gasoline" while glossing over the crux of the problem, which is where does that energy come from in the first place.

inglor_cz 4y ago
Methanol may be more transportable than electricity. Imagine a farm of floating wind farms far in the ocean, located in places where the wind conditions are reliable. If they produce methanol, you do not have to run a long power cable to the nearest shore, you just need to visit them every now and then with a cistern ship.
tunesmith 4y ago
Isn't part of the answer that we actually need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? It's not sufficient to just get to net-zero.
outworlder 4y ago
> why not just use that energy directly in the things that need it That's a very important point. However, sometimes you can't use the energy - like we can't eat CO2 + sunlight, but plants can turn that into something usable. Methanol is useful for chemical processes. The US Navy was looking into fuel production in aircraft carriers, which involved CO2 sequestration. That's useful since they have the spare power. And so on. It may also indirectly avoid more emissions - the CO2 being used has to be transported from somewhere, be it coal, oil, or other sources.
elil17 4y ago
Two thoughts on this: Good progress is being made on the clean electricity generation front. But distribution and storage are huge challenges. CO2 utilization processes solve distribution and storage challenges. Many CO2 capture processes need heat, not necessarily electricity. That really changed the landscape of effective energy sources (e.g. nuclear looks ~3x cheaper per thermal kWh vs. per electric kWh according to a researcher I spoke to). Solar thermal also starts to look practical (and for many processes the energy intensive sorbent regeneration step, unlike the air contractors, is not capex constrained so you don’t really care that it only runs when the sun is shining.

Animats 4y ago

Looks like more fossil-fuel promotion FUD. CO2 to methanol is energetically uphill. This is going to take energy to do. A lot of energy. It's likely to be insanely wasteful of energy, like using solar power to make electricity to crack water into hydrogen so the hydrogen can be burned to make electricity. That's about 40% efficient, nobody does it, but it's used as a talking point. Producing energy without generating CO2 is now both easier and cheaper than trying to do something with the CO2 from burning fuels.

oifjsidjf 4y ago
"Imagine the amount of brainwashing it took from the oil industry to convince people that cows are the problem instead of the oil industry".
- samstave 4y ago
  [0] - the old interview that supposedly states the origin of "fossil Fuels" by Oil Exec... [1] - One of the many articles refuting [0] --- [0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2RC9DgbJtM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2RC9DgbJtM [1] - https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-fossil-fuel-rockefeller/fact-check-the-term-fossil-fuel-was-not-coined-by-john-d-rockefeller-to-trick-people-into-thinking-oil-is-a-scarce-commodity-idUSL1N2QQ1UK https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-fossil-fuel-rockef...
missedthecue 4y ago
But this pull CO2 out of the air and puts it to good use, whereas building solar panels only prevents future CO2 emissions. They are different goals.
- lozenge 4y ago
  This doesn't pull CO2 out of the air. CO2 in the air is at 420ppm meaning you would need to process a huge amount of air to get a significant amount of methanol. This pulls CO2 out of "where carbon dioxide occurs in maximum concentration - for example directly in the exhaust gas stream of large industrial plants". One example would be fossil fuel power plants... It's an interesting technology but is bound to be co-opted by those who will pretend it is a reason to allow fossil fuel extraction to continue without limit. Eg [1] Also, many uses for methanol, such as as a fuel additive, release the carbon back into the atmosphere. Once the fossil fuel is extracted and burned, the carbon has moved from the slow cycle to the fast cycle - and it'll stay there.[2] [1] https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/ccs-will-not-solve-this-problem-energy-expert-responds-to-expected-morrison-government-announcement/ https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/ccs-will-not-sol... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle#:~:text=Fast%20and%20slow%20cycles,-The%20slow%20carbon&text=The%20fast%20or%20biological%20cycle,%2C%20soil%2C%20ocean%20and%20atmosphere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle#:~:text=Fast%20an....

jmyeet 4y ago

I'm a big believer that the ultimate solution to the climate crisis will involve in big part carbon sequestration in many forms. This is why the cost of energy is so important. Carbon sequestration is a relatively simple process but it makes no sense to burn hydrocarbons to do it. But if energy is sufficiently cheap then you can produce hydrocarbon fuels from the atmosphere, which at least is carbon neutral. There are a lot of use cases for this beyond economics too. For example, solar gets used a lot in a lot of cold remote regions. It's nowhere near as efficient as, say, ecuatorial solar power but the alternatives are much more expensive. Getting fuel to remote locations can be really expensive. Economics matter but so do circumstances. Solar is particularly good because it has no moving parts and is particularly efficient because it's about the only mass form of energy production that directly produces power (rather than, say, heating water to turn a generator, which adds a lot of expense, maintenance and failure modes). This article is kinda vague about what's going on but some form of carbon sequestration for practical purposes is going to be important IMHO.

bricss 4y ago

Carbon to tough to be dealt with and it will require at least a fusion reactor to handle it. Or good luck digging for manganese \(･◡･)/

fallingfrog 4y ago

Yeah that’s still going to require some external energy input, probably in the form of heat. It only matters in terms of atmospheric co2 if that heat comes from non fossil sources, or else it’s a net negative for the environment.